Ex Parte Burnhouse et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-0345                                                                             
                Application 09/812,417                                                                       
                                                                                                            
                      Claims 4 and 12 are also fully met by Lawler.  Focus frame 102 in                      
                Fig. 8 “highlights” the selected future program by either drawing a                          
                conspicuous border around the program tile or shading it in a different color.               
                See Lawler, col. 9, ll. 59-64; see also Fig. 8.  For at least these reasons, we              
                will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 4 and 12.                       
                      Regarding claims 5 and 13,2 we find that the window in which the                       
                future program actions menu is displayed in Fig. 8 of Lawler reasonably                      
                constitutes a “popup window” giving the term its broadest reasonable                         
                interpretation.  Significantly, the claims do not recite any further details                 
                regarding the displayed window apart from characterizing it as a “popup                      
                window.”  In short, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the                      
                scope of the claims.  The rejection of claims 5 and 13 based on the                          
                disclosure of Lawler is therefore sustained.                                                 
                      We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 14, 15,                  
                20, 21, 26, and 27.  At the outset, we note that Appellants did not separately               
                argue the limitations of claims 6, 14, 20, and 26 with particularity, but                    
                merely alleged that Lawler did not disclose the claimed limitations (Br. 7-8                 
                (Item (5)).  Merely pointing out what a claim recites, however, is not                       
                considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.  37 C.F.R.                   
                § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).                                                                   

                                                                                                            
                2 We note in passing that no antecedent basis exists for “the monitor display                
                screen” in claims 5 and 13 (emphasis added).  Because this issue was not                     
                raised on appeal, it is not before us.  In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is                 
                basically a board of review − we review…rejections made by patent                            
                examiners."  Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001).                         
                Therefore, we leave the resolution of this issue to the Examiner and the                     
                Appellants.                                                                                  
                                                     7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013